6,484
edits
Difference between revisions of "Archidoxes of Magic"
no edit summary
Occultwiki (talk | contribs) |
Occultwiki (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''''Archidoxis magica''''' (The '''''Archidoxes of Magic''''') is a pseudo-[[Paracelsus|Paracelsian]] [[grimoire]] of the 16th century. The book discusses magical | [[File:Planetary Squares.jpg|350px|thumb|Planetary [[magic square]]s from ''Archidoxes of Magic'']] | ||
The '''''Archidoxis magica''''' (The '''''Archidoxes of Magic''''') is a pseudo-[[Paracelsus|Paracelsian]] [[grimoire]] of the 16th century. The book discusses magical [[sigil]]s for the use on [[talisman]]s or [[amulet]]s including the creation of [[magic square]]s. | |||
==Authorship== | ==Authorship== | ||
The work is the main reason for Paracelsus' reputation as a magician: While Paracelsus did publish works on [[astrology]] and [[divination]], there is no reliable evidence that he was pursuing talismanic magic. Schneider (1982) has compared the text of all extant manuscript and printed versions with the text of a then-newly discovered early manuscript, with the conclusion that Paracelsian authorship seems "less unlikely" than previously thought, as the presumed original composition may indeed date to the lifetime of Paracelsus (d. 1541), but Schneider still concludes that the work as a whole is "spurious" even though portions (especially the first four books) might indeed be based on writings by Paracelsus, and might be contemporary with Paracelsus' own ''Neun Bücher Archidoxis'' (a work on medicine written c. 1526 and first printed in 1567). | The work is the main reason for Paracelsus' reputation as a magician: While Paracelsus did publish works on [[astrology]] and [[divination]], there is no reliable evidence that he was pursuing talismanic magic. | ||
Schneider (1982) has compared the text of all extant manuscript and printed versions with the text of a then-newly discovered early manuscript, with the conclusion that Paracelsian authorship seems "less unlikely" than previously thought, as the presumed original composition may indeed date to the lifetime of Paracelsus (d. 1541), but Schneider still concludes that the work as a whole is "spurious" even though portions (especially the first four books) might indeed be based on writings by Paracelsus, and might be contemporary with Paracelsus' own ''Neun Bücher Archidoxis'' (a work on medicine written c. 1526 and first printed in 1567). | |||
==Publication== | ==Publication== | ||